andyg;324587 Wrote: > On Jul 31, 2008, at 9:42 AM, FredFredrickson wrote: > > > > > I applaud the efforts- but am I about to shoot myself in the foot by > > saying.. I thought 128 sounded just fine..? (and I can't tell the > > difference with 192?) > > > > I know! I know! I need to go out and buy those gold-plated monster > > ethernet cables that cost $800 to really hear the subtle differences > > and nuances.. > > > > I can certainly tell below 128. > > > > Maybe I should do a 128 vs 192 side by side comparison.. > > > > *hands in audiophile-in-training card* > > I'm no audiophile either, but 192 sounds a lot better than 128 to me. > > It could very well be imagined, I haven't done a blind test. Also > switching to mp3 should have given us gapless playback in Rhapsody, > which would have been a much better benefit, but unfortunately all of > > their tracks were somehow encoded wrong so there is no gapless. :(
I wouldn't be surprised if Rhapsody prefers it that way. The albums of some artists can only be heard gapless if you listen to it in it's entirety. Helps reduce "track" buying. I found out the hard way when I had to buy Graham Haynes Full Circle CD just to hear "Standing Before Time" completely. -- bopyanker ------------------------------------------------------------------------ bopyanker's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14792 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=50385 _______________________________________________ squeezenetwork mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/squeezenetwork
